Iron County register., 1887-11-10
The Anarchist Decision.

The Anarchist Decision.
The opinion of the federal supr eme
| court denying the writ of error in the
Anarchist cases is in line with the the.
ories of the constitutional rights of the
states to which the court of late years
| has tended. The return to the former
standpoint that "the first ten articles
of the constitutional amendments were
not intended to limit the powers OF the
states 10 respect to their own citizens,
but TO operate on the national govern
ment Alone" would even seem to be
| akin to the doctrine of state sovereignty
, held by Mr.. Jefferson Davis as distinct
from the later views of state rights.
Historically, the position of the supreme
court on this point is unimpregnable
The agitation which Patrick Henry in
augurated to secure these amendments
undoubtedly had for its sole object the
Limitation of the powers granted the
federal government by the original
constitution. Since the state sover-
eighty idea was overthrown, the opin-
ion has gained ground among lawyers
and pubiicists that such of those amend
ments as define the rights of the citizen
were his guarantee for these rights, not
only against the federal government,
but against the state government as
well. The federal supreme court has
held that any federal statute is null and
void if it is contrary to the fourth OF
these amendments;
The right of the people to be secure In their
persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable researches and seizures shall
not be violated.
In the matter of the application of
the Pacific railway commission for an
order upon witness, ON August 20, this
year, Mr.. Justice Field quoted as fol-
lows:
In the recent case of Boyd vs. The United
States t116 U. S., 616] the supreme court held
that provision of law of congress, which
authorized a court of the United States In
revenue cases, on motion of the government
attorney, to require the defendant or claim
ant to produce in court his private books, in
voices and papers, or that the allegations Of
the attorney respecting them should be taken
as confessed, was unconstitutional and void
as applied to suits for penalties or to estab-
lish forfeiture of the party's goods. The
court speaking by Mr.. Justice Bradley, said:
"Any compulsory discovery by eXtorting the
party's oath, or compelling the production
OF his private books aud papers to convict
him of crime or to forfeit his property is con-
trary to the principles of free government.
It Is abhorrent to the instincts of an English
man; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an
American. 1t may suit the purpose Of
despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure
atmosphere of political liberty and personal
freedom"
In his opinion in the celebrated case of
Entiek VS.. Darlington and three other kings
messengers, reported at length In 10 "How-
ell's State Trials" 1929. Lord Camden said:
"Papers are the owners goods and chattels;
they are his dearest property, and are SO far
from enduring seizure that they will hardly
bear an inspection; and, though the eye can
not by the lave of England be guilty of O
trespass, yet where papers are removed and
carried away the secret nature of those goods
will be an aggravation of the trespass and
demand more considerable damages in that
respect. Where Is the written law that gives
any magistrate such power? l can safely
answer, there is none; and, therefore, it Is
too much for us without such authority to
pronounce practice legal which would be
subverslve Of all the comforts of society,""
1t must be noted that In the Boyd
case the enactment declared void by
the supreme court in such sweeping
terms was a federal enactment. It'll
the fourth amendment, and,
though the process under it was judicial
process, it WAS declared demonstrations
al and despotic.
The protection of the fourth amend
ment was INVOKED for the defendant
Spies, aginst whom, as 1t was claimed,
action of unreasona BILE search and seiz-
ure had been directed under Illinois
judicial process in violation of the fed
eral amendment. On this point the
court says:
Something has been said in argument about
alleged unreasonable search and seizure of
the papers and property of some of the de-
PENDANTS and their use in evidence on the
trial of the case. Special reference is made
in this connection to the letter Of Most about
which Spies was cross-examined, but we
record in which it appears that objection was
made to the use OF the evidence on that ac-
count, ,and upon this point the supreme court
Of the state, in that part of its opinion which |
has been printed with this motion, remarks |
as follows: The objection that the letter was
from the defendant by an unlawful
seizure ia made for the first time in this court.
1t was not made on the trial In the court be-
low. Such an objection as this, which Is not
by the nature of the offered cyl
dence, but depends upon the proof Of an out
side ia ct, should have been made on the trial. |
The defence should have proved that the
Most letter was one of the letters illegally
seized by the police, and should then have
moved to exclude Or oppose its admission on
the ground that it was obtained by such ille-
gal seizure. This was not done, and, there
fore, we cannot consider the constitutional
questions supposed to be involved.
OF all the grounds alleged for federal
this was the only one so
devoid of tech cbnicality as to appeal at
once for general consideration. It is
On this point that posterity will be
most likely to base its judgment Of the
trial. The court has not passed on it
except in quoting the decisions limiting
the application of the first ten amend